Owt for nowt

[dsr]

Well, for a start, we could ask why there is only £40m in the bank, given that...
i) we must have generated around £750m in revenue under Dyche's tenure, and
ii) we consistently operate with one of the lowest wage bills in the PL, and
iii) we have had a net transfer spend of just £10m a season over the last five seasons:
...but we're not really allowed to go there.

Other than that, I'm not sure there is a definitive answer to your question, but SD is well aware of the finances of the club and how it operates, and I would trust him not to make unreasonable demands of the Board. Therefore, if he identifies players he wants - or would like to keep - they should go the extra mile to facilitate that.

Well, to answer your starting question, it's because we've spent it. Of course. Just because we have the lowest wage bill doesn't mean that we keep all the money we receive - money comes in, and goes out, and the difference is what we keep.

As for not being allowed to go there, whoever told you that knows nothing about limited companies. Specifically, the audited accounts are published at Companies House each year, latest accounts being to 30th June 2019, and they are free for anyone to have a look at. So go there all you like.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history

But to save you the effort, we have between summer 2013 and summer 2019:

Income £540m
Wages £300m
Promotion bonuses £20m
Other admin costs £65m
Tax £15m
Players purchased £155m
Players sold £65m

Overall profit £50m

All figures rounded to the nearest £5m.

Incidentally, over the last five years including 2019-20, the net transfer spend is £90m which makes £18m per year.

[Woodleyclaret]

I am a little more sceptical re the good intentions of our directors
They did back the club when we were having ITV digital issues(these lasted 10 yrs at Burnley)
But one director was paid serious interest on his loan
We must back Sean in the market and reward him with a new contract for the eye watering money he's made us
To force him out will be a football and business disaster

[Somethingfishy]

People can defend squad size and transfer and contract policy all you want on here but there is only one man that truly judges whether he thinks it is good enough and that is Sean Dyche and he is clearly getting frustrated. CT knows there are issues. The OP is mischievous as it is clearly one of his tongue in cheek comments but many a true thing is said in jest and he is clearly increasingly frustrated at the constraints. Now you can say "but he has always dealt with it before and got on with it" but perhaps he thinks he is treading water and things should be easing as he keeps giving us Premier league football.
I don't think any of us are expecting big money signings but Garlick needs to grasp the financial reality of the situation. Dyche has come out and warned him that bargains like Pope and JBG are just not that cheap anymore. If Garlick doesn't loosen the very tight purse strings at least a little we WILL be left behind even in the bottom of the market. Dyche knows this.

[Chester Perry]

Well, to answer your starting question, it's because we've spent it. Of course. Just because we have the lowest wage bill doesn't mean that we keep all the money we receive - money comes in, and goes out, and the difference is what we keep.

As for not being allowed to go there, whoever told you that knows nothing about limited companies. Specifically, the audited accounts are published at Companies House each year, latest accounts being to 30th June 2019, and they are free for anyone to have a look at. So go there all you like.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history

But to save you the effort, we have between summer 2013 and summer 2019:

Income £540m
Wages £300m
Promotion bonuses £20m
Other admin costs £65m
Tax £15m
Players purchased £155m
Players sold £65m

Overall profit £50m

All figures rounded to the nearest £5m.


Incidentally, over the last five years including 2019-20, the net transfer spend is £90m which makes £18m per year.

Do you think that the £210m difference in income covers the gap in spend he was wanting? nowt like the mis-informed demanding what was never there

[Conroy92]

Well, for a start, we could ask why there is only £40m in the bank, given that...
i) we must have generated around £750m in revenue under Dyche's tenure, and
ii) we consistently operate with one of the lowest wage bills in the PL, and
iii) we have had a net transfer spend of just £10m a season over the last five seasons:
...but we're not really allowed to go there.

Other than that, I'm not sure there is a definitive answer to your question, but SD is well aware of the finances of the club and how it operates, and I would trust him not to make unreasonable demands of the Board. Therefore, if he identifies players he wants - or would like to keep - they should go the extra mile to facilitate that.

This guy has it. I think the real discrepancy is around the 40m at bank.
Despite that, if it's 40m or not. I'd rather have the 40m in playable assets on the field than posting profits every year in aid of trying to sell/gain investment for the club.

[claretandy]

4 pages of bickering for a joke taken out of context, well done everyone.

[Zlatan]

4 pages of bickering for a joke taken out of context, well done everyone.

Lots of fannies about at the moment

[Spike]

Do not believe the Sun ! Long history of not telling the truth

[scouseclaret]

Well, to answer your starting question, it's because we've spent it. Of course. Just because we have the lowest wage bill doesn't mean that we keep all the money we receive - money comes in, and goes out, and the difference is what we keep.

As for not being allowed to go there, whoever told you that knows nothing about limited companies. Specifically, the audited accounts are published at Companies House each year, latest accounts being to 30th June 2019, and they are free for anyone to have a look at. So go there all you like.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history

But to save you the effort, we have between summer 2013 and summer 2019:

Income £540m
Wages £300m
Promotion bonuses £20m
Other admin costs £65m
Tax £15m
Players purchased £155m
Players sold £65m

Overall profit £50m

All figures rounded to the nearest £5m.

Incidentally, over the last five years including 2019-20, the net transfer spend is £90m which makes £18m per year.

What I meant was, debate about exactly how clean the accounts are and whether or not the board do actually take money out of the club or not is not encouraged on here (for good reason, tbf). I also don't need to be patronisingly told how to find the accounts on Companies House (although i might add that, before I was disenfranchised as a shareholder, I used to get a copy posted to me!)

[Leisure]

Be quiet you, you're not even worthy of the keep net these days even when it's not full to the brim.

To be fair the other 2 arent usually weekend posters, but I reckon if we bump it Monday theyll get involved.

Out on the beer now

Stay safe gents, UTC

Insinuating that you are fishing is pretty lame and a very poor excuse/cop-out for some of the aspersions you have made in this thread about the Chairman!

[Leisure]

What I meant was, debate about exactly how clean the accounts are and whether or not the board do actually take money out of the club or not is not encouraged on here

How clean the accounts are? Whether or not the board do actually take money out of the club? What are you insinuating?

[bfcjg]

Dyche and the board are like an old married couple, bicker,disagree, quarrel now and then but know their better together. I hope.

[Bertiebeehead]

Lots of fannies about at the moment

I’ve not had a sniff for months.

[JohnMac]

Hull City were free spending and signing players on salaries beyond the income stream

They're doing okay now...

[Untinted Glasses]

Do you guys not have a sense of humour? Dyche obviously does. Don't get carried away with "he shouldn't say this" "he shouldn't say that" Are we not Burnley FC ? Are we not a town thats down to earth ? I can only imagine a lot off this thread are not from Burnley nor the local towns. Get a grip ya bunch of muppets

[Top Claret]

I’ve not had a sniff for months.

I'll 2nd that

[MACCA]

Insinuating that you are fishing is pretty lame and a very poor excuse/cop-out for some of the aspersions you have made in this thread about the Chairman!

Ok I'm not, there you go..

[Leisure]

Ok I'm not, there you go..

C'mon then, back up your comments about the Chairman! You can't keep making vague aspersions about him without some facts! I wait with baited breath!

[MACCA]

C'mon then, back up your comments about the Chairman! You can't keep making vague aspersions about him without some facts! I wait with baited breath!

Give it up Pete, enjoy your weekend

[Leisure]

Give it up Pete, enjoy your weekend

And you, pal.

[MACCA]

And you, pal.

Will do, beers, bbq and a cheese board. Even missing out on £500 can't dampen my mood.l, we are on a roll.
UTC

[dsr]

What I meant was, debate about exactly how clean the accounts are and whether or not the board do actually take money out of the club or not is not encouraged on here (for good reason, tbf). I also don't need to be patronisingly told how to find the accounts on Companies House (although i might add that, before I was disenfranchised as a shareholder, I used to get a copy posted to me!)

There's a good reason for not posting that sort of stuff on here. If you believe that the accounts are fraudulently prepared and filed - with or without the help of the auditor - and if you believe that the directors are criminally defrauding the club of funds - then there are proper channels to go through. The police. The Institute of Chartered Accountants. The Institute of Directors. The Courts. Take your evidence there.

Posting libel on a message board means that the message board editors are jointly liable for the libel, if they let it stop on. If you want to create your own message board and accuse willy-nilly of criminal acts, then you are at liberty to do so and you alone will be subject of any libel action. But if you do it on here, the site owners/admiistrators are also liable, so of course they take it down.

Have you tried assembling your detailed body of evidence and trying to get the press interested? The Daily Mirror would like it; possibly the Sun. Show them your evidence.

[cricketfieldclarets]

“Hired the best manager we have had in 50 years.”
Agreed - big tick for MG and the board.

“Reached Category 1 status Academy. the same as Liverpool, Man Utd, Chelsea et al.
Invested in one of the best training complexes in the country that will see the club well for years.”

When Dyche was first appointed, he called out the Board as to why they hadn’t addressed the facilities when we got promoted in 2009. It’s fair to say that we might not have got the facilities we now have without the guidance of a manager prepared to take a long-term view.

“Bought The Stadium back.”
Facilitated by the money generated by SD getting us back in the Premier League. Those involved made good money out of this transaction.

“Produced multiple England players.”
Mainly brought to the club by Sean Dyche, whom they would all credit with having improved them as players.

“Become debt free.”
See “bought the stadium back” ( I have no problem with the board earning a decent rate of interest on their loans, btw, but it was not an act of pure altruism.)

“Broken our transfer record 5 times.”
Facilitated by Sean Dyche. We’ve also broken our outward transfer record a few times!

“Finished top ten of the premier league twice.
Had 5 sustained seasons at this level.
Got into Europe and come close again this year.”

All the product of the exceptional management skills of Sean Dyche. I would stop short of saying these achievements were despite the Board, but I think it’s fair to say they are well beyond anything we had a right to expect with the resources made available.

Absolutely. No doubt both had a huge role to play. But ultimately they hired him, backed him and kept faith with him.

Had they hired a dudd they would equally be getting the blame for that so its absolutely right they get recognised for hiring a great manager.

[JohnMac]

I think some people are confused because of Covid-19.

Without the necessary measures imposed on football, we would have seen out the season with Hart, Lennon and Hendrick in the squad. The situation forced upon us meant extending contacts, not renewing them and it seems obvious the Club didn't need to pay certain players who were not going to be key to the season, Hart and Lennon. Promote 2 kids and save a lot of money. 3 or 4 weeks may not seem like much but these are fantasy wages plus associated NI payments etc.

Hendrick wanted away, nothing the Club can do about that without pandering to demands they think are unrealistic. Bardsley was probably happy to extend and be offered a renewed contract. Why try to do both, just get the later one correct for both parties even if it is a couple of days late.

[JohnMac]

I also think in these uncertain times Jeff Hendrick may end up missing Burnley more than we miss him.

I hope he gets sorted but there isn't yet a public clamour to secure his services.

[aggi]

What I meant was, debate about exactly how clean the accounts are and whether or not the board do actually take money out of the club or not is not encouraged on here (for good reason, tbf). I also don't need to be patronisingly told how to find the accounts on Companies House (although i might add that, before I was disenfranchised as a shareholder, I used to get a copy posted to me!)

You can't beat these occasional accusations of fraud. There was some poster 10 or 15 years ago (I can't remember whether it was on ClaretsMad or Longside Lounge) who was absolutely obsessed with the idea that the directors were somehow siphoning money out of the club. It's always a bit light on detail on how it's happening.

Personally if I was going to fraudulently take money out of a football club I'd set up a fake agent in a low tax regime and use that to divert funds. Any other suggestions?

[aggi]

In terms of the free thing, when he was on the Peter Crouch podcast Dyche was making jokes about how much he likes free things, the original post seems to be in a similar vein.

[ewanrob]

1st for me, read every page of this thread...usually speed read and pick up on juicy stuff. It's really interesting to see that despite how well we are doing, it's as though we are ready to implode. I've my own views on MG, only that I think hes had enough, never puts himself out there to respond to SD or others Assumptions on our financial state, other than at the start of Lockdown. I truly believe it's become an uncontrollable beast for him/board.

[BOYSIE31]

Not seen this elsewhere. But disappointing to read these comments. Is the manager trying to engineer his own exit? Really don’t understand why when we are so big on unity team spirt etc these comments are being made.

It’s not like Wood. Vydra. Gibson. Jay. Brownhill. Hendrick et all came cheap. Or that Hart. Lennon. Barton. Defour will have been on peanuts.

I love Dyche. He’s done a great job. But this is as disappointing as his pre city comments.

Been saying same comments for a few years but people on here seem to read it differently and he cannot do no wrong.
I don't like these comments when he has sent a 15 million pound signing to train with his old club.

[aclaretinstevenage]

He has, and is doing, the job that he is paid for and has done it very well. He has used the resources available to him to the best of his and their ability and he has done it for 8 years so he has earned his corn.
Why should he not say what he thinks, he is a football manager and, in that fickle world, he knows that he could be gone tomorrow at the whim of the board. He has said what he wants to say, if the board take exception to that, then it is up to them to do something about it.

In the world of football ---que sera, sera and life goes on. Managers, players and staff are employed by the Club to do a job whereas we fans have the choice whether or not we wish to attend matches and support the Club but our jobs are not on the line.

Logged in to agree with and "like?" this post.

[Leisure]

Personally if I was going to fraudulently take money out of a football club I'd set up a fake agent in a low tax regime and use that to divert funds. Any other suggestions?

Order a box of Twix and send the bill to the club!

[Ashingtonclaret46]

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote: ↑
Sat Jul 18, 2020 12:23 pm
He has, and is doing, the job that he is paid for and has done it very well. He has used the resources available to him to the best of his and their ability and he has done it for 8 years so he has earned his corn.
Why should he not say what he thinks, he is a football manager and, in that fickle world, he knows that he could be gone tomorrow at the whim of the board. He has said what he wants to say, if the board take exception to that, then it is up to them to do something about it.

In the world of football ---que sera, sera and life goes on. Managers, players and staff are employed by the Club to do a job whereas we fans have the choice whether or not we wish to attend matches and support the Club but our jobs are not on the line.


"Logged in to agree with and "like?" this post." ---thanks claretinstevenage.

I think that this is exactly what Nigel Pearson has done at Watford. He has upset the owners and they have given him the sack showing just how insecure a football manager's job is.

[MACCA]

Glad someone bumped this, it's been s decent read / debate, I've a few hours spare tonight infront of the box watching cricket and footy.

[Spijed]

Does anyone know if the relationship between SD and Mike Garlick is still strained, as reported by Chris Boden and a few others, or has it got better in recent weeks?

Basically, is SD likely to leave at the end of the season, or is there a good chance he will be staying?

[ewanrob]

Hes not happy, that's clear...and our progress after the lockdown has only added to his stock. Leeds are offering Bielsa 8million if reports are to be believed...that's double SD wage, will our club offer similar in the hope he signs again ?

[Royboyclaret]

Hes not happy, that's clear...and our progress after the lockdown has only added to his stock. Leeds are offering Bielsa 8million if reports are to be believed...that's double SD wage, will our club offer similar in the hope he signs again ?

No, not the slightest chance.

In fact the current £3.75m figure often quoted on here is itself an exaggeration.

Even in their first season back in the Premier League Leeds will be operating on a different financial level to ours at Burnley. For example their Matchday Receipts will be ten times that at Turf Moor. That said, this reported £8m figure for Bielsa will also be an exaggeration.

[ewanrob]

No, not the slightest chance.

In fact the current £3.75m figure often quoted on here is itself an exaggeration.

Even in their first season back in the Premier League Leeds will be operating on a different financial level to ours at Burnley. For example their Matchday Receipts will be ten times that at Turf Moor. That said, this reported £8m figure for Bielsa will also be an exaggeration.

I bow to your knowledge on this RBC.

[IanMcL]

I am a little more sceptical re the good intentions of our directors
They did back the club when we were having ITV digital issues(these lasted 10 yrs at Burnley)
But one director was paid serious interest on his loan
We must back Sean in the market and reward him with a new contract for the eye watering money he's made us
To force him out will be a football and business disaster

Yes firector loans are fery lucrative, for the director concerned, although no guarantee of getting your money back, at the time!